Posted on 06/10/2022 8:06:45 AM PDT by Salman
New models that show how the continents were assembled are providing fresh insights into the history of the Earth and will help provide a better understanding of natural hazards like earthquakes and volcanoes.
"We looked at the current knowledge of the configuration of plate boundary zones and the past construction of the continental crust," said Dr Derrick Hasterok, Lecturer, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Adelaide who led the team that produced the new models.
"The continents were assembled a few pieces at a time, a bit like a jigsaw, but each time the puzzle was finished it was cut up and reorganised to produce a new picture. Our study helps illuminate the various components so geologists can piece together the previous images.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at spacedaily.com ...
I never advocated not being curious; but ARGUING about the interpretations of what we see is just dumb.
Intelligent discourse - which sometimes is interpreted as ‘arguing’ - is one of methods that humans employ to get to Truth.
It would be perfectly sane for folks with differing interpretations to just acknowledge them factually, and not load them up with oppositional diatribes.
Instead, the unhelpful dynamic is to take the facts of every new discovery and immediately pelt the universe with all the many ways these facts force the other guy to rethink his cosmology.
How da Hell is that at all helpful to anyone?
And let me drill right to the core:
If you think you can use cosmological discoveries to argue for or against the existence of God you’re foolish.
It’s chicken and egg: one’s cosmology is a deterministic influence on one’s belief; and one’s belief is a deterministic influence on one’s cosmology.
Therefore, NEITHER CAN BE RATIONALLY USED TO ARGUE THE OTHER to a definite endpoint!
THE MOST we can rationally do is review and acknowledge the ways cosmological discoveries variously fit into the frameworks of differing beliefs, which would — actually — be GREAT cigars-and-cognac conversation of a truly intellectual and stimulating nature. But, broadly, our society has nearly lost the ability to converse deeply and amicably on topics where participants hold conflicting views, and this “crevo” species of argument is a prime example.
I’ve seen subjects like this one devolve into bitter name-calling and insult. (And sadly, it’s often on the part of those whose personal philosophies would seem to preach against belligerence and vindictiveness.)
But I haven’t really seen it on this one...yet.
Maybe we should wait till somebody actually blows their top before telling them what to do.
Ecclesiates 3:1
There is a time for everything,and a season for every activity under the heavens:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them....
I’ve always liked that song.
We don’t hear much good song-writing on the radio these days.
Well, seeing as that song was written over 2,000 years ago...
Of course good song lyrics will last for generations!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVOJla2vYx8
I know there must be other pop songs with lyrics taken from the Bible; can’t think of any right now.
“Maybe we should wait till somebody actually blows their top before telling them what to do.”
Yeah, well, and “An once of prevention...” I saw a few toes, there, startin ta poke out over the Abyss; there’s that goading sort of language that gets the controversy cranked up, and I wanted to douse that before it had much of a chance to get going.
I’ve seen some deusies around these forums in times past, and — yeah — it can get to an unconscionable level of UGLY.
No you don’t. You are just trying to impress yourself with your own “cleverness”.
The Genesis account is far more plausible than most can grasp —
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Not only what you say .... but the Bible is quite clear that death entered the scene because of sin. Putting it another way: no sin would mean no death; but evolution requires/involves death.
The Genesis account is far more plausible than most can grasp —
Probably the best way to deal with the really rude insults is to ignore them. Take the wind out of their sails.
(I know - easy to say.)
“...it’s often on the part of those whose personal philosophies would seem to preach against belligerence and vindictiveness.”
Well-noted.
I have discovered in my life in Christian circles that there’s no warfare like internecine warfare.
I used to dive into these things and sling the data with the rest, until God kinda grabbed me by the nape of my neck and asked me how many converts I’d made in all of it.
Since that number was ZERO, He asked the further question of how quickly I thought He could produce this universe.
A moment or three pondering that — I can’t find a good reason to be adversarial, at all, anymore. It’s all data, now. It can be thoroughly interesting in its own right, and doesn’t have to be the basis for either cosmology or theology.
I guess, at root, it was less important to be right than to be FREE; I got interrupted trying to show everybody how right I was, and got just enough of a download of TRUTH to give me real liberty.
I still enjoy the science, and the data, but I don’t any longer need to have a vested interest in how it all gets interpreted.
I think a lot of the problem with some liberals/activists is similar - they often care more about being ‘the one who is right’ than about WHAT is really right.
That said, I think subjects like this are interesting; and I don’t see why they can’t be discussed without rancor and defensiveness. To admit that they can’t means there is a problem with the correspondents, not with the subject.
“...ignore them.”
It’s a diffusing strategy, to be sure.
I recognized in the building comments the thumbprint of certain viewpoints I know well, because I share components of them, and tossed my “third way” perspective into the mix as a “Hey, it doesn’t have to be this way” sort of waving the flag.
I know from personal experience that my take is widely pooh-poohed with a dismissive, “God wouldn’t fool us all that way,” and I used to use that exact argument.
Of course, when we humans build models of things — cars, planes, tanks, railroads... one dominating practice is artificial weathering; creating a fake sense of age.
Whenever we write stories, we begin in the middle of something; our brand new work assumes the existence of an entire history. What made The Lord of the Rings a smashing epic was the incredible extent of the history invested in it by the author.
When we make movies we “set the stage” before the actors appear; we create a sense of time and place as context for their act.
So, in considering all these things I suddenly found myself at a loss as to why I needed to project limits upon God as to the manner in which He might choose to “set the stage” for His epic tale.
“I think subjects like this are interesting; and I don’t see why they can’t be discussed without rancor and defensiveness. To admit that they can’t means there is a problem with the correspondents, not with the subject.”
THAT is, I agree, exactly the case.
I think FAR more caustic argument could be turned to productive discussion, and people could have an enjoyable intellectual excursion and go home as happy friends, instead of bitter adversaries.
Even if God only created and placed everything in our minds a few hours ago, He also GAVE us minds and intellects and curiosity about His creation.
I think he expects us to use them and that it’s natural for us to be curious and question. He doesn’t seem to create anything without a purpose.
“No you don’t.”
I said I don’t know. Can you explain?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.